This is a call for a Constitutional Amendment.

He probably hasn't seen it. The problem with radical democracy is that everyone has an idea, the problem is combining these ideas so that everyone is on the same page.

I think corporate influence is a good start.

How is the government overreaching again?

Is it that punitive effective tax rate of 17% on the uber rich? Maybe it's those pesky regulations about putting labels on the side of food.

we need to remove all other influence, ... and wealthy individuals.
For once I actually agree with you -- and I know EXACTLY where to start that 'removing wealthy individuals thing': the koch[roaches] and the badyear blimp. Preferably in body bags!

How do you propose to remove corporate, union, PAC, and other origins of monetary influence on politics short of a Constitutional amendment? I have thought on this for more than a year, and have come to the conclusion that a Constitutional amendment is the only method to removing money from politics. If you have another idea, I'm all ears.

Boy my spelling really sucks. My apologies.
A good start but the rest needs to happen concurrently or it will be seen as a strike against corporations and not against influence peddling in Washington. One without the other brings no validity to the table.
Compliance costs on business alone in this country currently are about 100 billion and regulatory costs about 38 billion. Government controls virtually every little bit of our lives. We are locking up farmers because people want to drink raw milk. Obama wants to fine us if we don't purchase health insurance. You can't marry, engage in business, build a barn without government approval. Laugh if you want but I don't see the government as the great protector, anyhow.... The more regulations, the greater the tax code, the more influence the government has over us the greater the target for lobbying for our own interests. A limited government, with most of the things you might be referring to remaining at the state level where the people can control the extent, does not provide the target rich environment for special interests. With all the power consolidated the goal is relatively easy to achieve. Anyhow, I still don't think an amendment is necessary and no, we are not a democracy.

Body bags. Well, well. This must be democracy in action.

"Compliance costs on business alone in this country currently are about 100 billion and regulatory costs about 38 billion."

I'm astonished at how low that figure is. Thanks for the ammo. I can't believe that compliance costs for every piece of productivity in our economy is less than 1% of the economy's productivity!

You mean to tell me that putting labels on food and meeting codes and keeping people safe from everything a large organization (with only profits in mind) could possibly do to hurt the individual consumer costs less than 1%?

What's the problem with compliance costs, again?

We still have election laws. Prohibit the money, period. I got a kick out of McCain/Feingold which was supposed to remove the money influence from politics. Worked well didn't it? Why do we even think that a Constitutional Amendment will solve the problem? Many on the left embrace the concept of a "living, breathing Constitution that changes meaning with the times". What might "money influence" mean when times change? Even though we have a built in term limitation which is also known as elections I would rather see an Amendment limiting terms to two at the most or some other number as long as it is not high. It would be shorter and all encompassing. Finances need to be more transparent. I don't mean Obama transparency but real transparency. Given the amount of bucks involved and the stakes I don't know if we ever will get the money out of politics, given the proclivity of people to gravitate toward dollars. Put the Congress critters in office and watch them very closely. I'm open to suggestions but in spite of being more in favor of a term limiting amendment I would rather start at the bottom than begin by throwing nukes. Actually I think that the fact that this is a problem is a scathing indictment of our elected representatives.

The problem with prohibiting campaign contributions period is a paradox. You cannot pass a federal law to prohibit this problem of bought federal politicians if the politicians themselves are bought! If the law could be passed in the Congress, the law itself would be unnecessary. You have to circumvent the Congress to pass this law. The only vehicle in which to do it and make sure it isn't repealed in the future is an Article V Convention, where the states ratify the amendment, making it law of the land. Unless you have a better idea to get such a law actually passed.

I disagree with a singular focus on monetary transparency because today it is largely transparent, yet that doesn't change the effectiveness of advertising and bought campaigns. You do bring up a good point that the long term viability of such an amendment does depend on language, and that is why there are MANY legal scholars working on the draft language. See: http://www.wolf-pac.com/28th

Wall street and banks first ...

CEO's are the fall guys, look at the boards of directors and you will find your crooks.

Lloyd Blankfein comes to mind ...

They have personhood. This means they can enter into contracts and be sued. Frankly I don't know why anyone would go into business involving risk without some sort of personal protection.

I agree with this, well done. To add to it I would state that no member of Congress would be allowed to invest with companies that could in any way sway their votes regarding legislation while in Congress as well.

Good point! Loopholes must be stopped.

And add to the list this one.
That the people's will be included in any legislative process with a national referendum vote to be placed into the records in the house and senate while they debate any bill that will effect the citizens of this nation.
They don't listen to us and it's about tine they do.

If re-election is dependent upon the voting public and money doesn't come from contaminating lobbyists, the results will be legislation by the will of the people.

Outlaw lobbyists as well. they are nothing but leaches for big business.

Now we are talking, heck yes I would go for an Amendment like that. People like quick and concise soundbites. We all know how easily they get overwhelmed.

You know it.

Now we are taking a chunk out of their behinds. A move like this is huge and takes a lot of energy and time. I just hope it wouldn't get watered down on the way. We know they love to do that.

I saw a good tweet a minute ago, Why do they get to sit in their warm offices and do nothing while the real policy changers are freezing out here.

And , what about the "super committy" they are about to pass the buck to . As opposed to super comedy , which this is nothing of the sort .

It's all about the money! Take away the money incentive and replace it with our vote - problem solved. We have a government by the people, for the people again.

I agree Lobbyists are a part of the problem, but once campaign finance is reformed (in the manner Swisher described), and loopholes/revolving doors are closed, Lobbyists would lose their hold on Congress.

Largely why I think lobbying should not be outlawed is because it's in the Constitution, as a method to approach our lawmakers and petition them to pass or not pass certain laws. That availability to the public should remain open, even though it has been morphed and defrauded in its current form.

Very cool vid !

So we.... give up. It has NOT been tried like this. Pink Floyd Rocks, and Roger Waters, and Sid Barrett would agree.

Agreed.

Campaign contributions are vital too . I just do not see them giving themselves a pay cut anytime soon ... OR Not allowing their donors the protection of corporate person hood in their corrupt lives .

Citizen's United becomes null with a Constitutional Amendment. You disagree so you take a personal shot? Primitive to say the least.

Let's focus on the solutions.

Expressing honest opinions is called exercising that "democracy" some are so gung ho about when they can suddenly use it to their advantage to try to up the ratings for their upcoming TV show. When he takes off the Young Turks shirt he was using to advertise that and goes to DC to do it right then maybe I'll believe its sincere. Otherwise, if you don't like the opinions expressed here you can exercise your own option to show it and I will then exercise mine. Isn't "Democracy" wonderful? And I never stated I disagreed with getting corporate money out of politics. I have also been saying that as well as many others for a very long time and voting my conscience regarding that, but it does take much more than a piece of paper to make it a true success. And I will have to check more into reversing Citizens United through a constitutional amendment, which I believe would have to be ratified by those bought and sold politicians...which is the point of mentioning the viscious cycle we are dealing with.

Yes, they already use "bundling." So it does go directly to changing the corrupt nature of government and in the end human nature as a whole.

I like this amendment better: it doesn't seek to just get the money out, but change the perception of our planet as well which influences it all to begin with, which is key.

http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php/20100905073234646

I actually don't like Cenk that much, this is not about him. This avenue was available before any of us out here had a chance to enjoy the benefits of that piece of paper. Like expressing ourselves here. I will guarantee you would vote for such a measure if that is that only way to topple the Statuesque. Again, this is not about us anymore. Small talking points are not changing anything these days. Pro-activism is what we need. ;;; Still waiting for a better solution. Meanwhile they are trying to take the tents again.

A sweeping Amendment like that would be great. The people would have to stay extremely diligence in order to pull it off. === Off topic, they want to try and get non-profit status out here to get more amenities.. need opinion? worth it??

Yes , and there are many , possibly this , but all must be considered . A people's coalition to decide the fate of any corporate charter , would be something else to consider too .Something beyond this sick system we have , some oversight from US directly .

Thanks for the link , i will get back after i read it ....

Right On mspray11 have a great day, Love you too... =)

We can sit here and talk about jobs, the economy, and the Wars .. etc. Keep on digging in the devils details just like our friends on the hill. This country was founded on solutions, too many people more interested in the disagreements. If we keep coming up with quick fixes, then we will end up right back where we started. Notice the common denominator in all of our problems is the Monetary Influence that these huge corporations have on the control of this country? Tearing down the entire system would include ripping up the Constitution. I am thinking that it would actually be harder to get a consensus on that, then it would be to lock out Big Money. -- from the cold cold plaza this morning.

The Constitution Eh'???

It's true, mspray. I'm glad he is coming to Current.

So , you cannot imagine anything better ? This system is continually corrupted by money . From all directions . Any law passed can be turned back or written around ....

So you would rip up the Constitution? I will stay out here with my cold feet while you sit somewhere nice and warm with your discontent.

Listen to yourself, you sound so positive. Where are is your solution?

That's why we need a Constitutional Amendment. It doesn't even have to pass the Congress, it can be ratified by 3/5 majority of states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_Stat...

KB posted this the other day and I was moved by it, mspray. Power to the people!